Joe Arpaio's Forensic Argument

Arguments can be made out of just about anything. An argument has two sides, and conveying an opinion is one of those two sides. Arguments sort out the views of others and the support of those arguments represented by those people from past events. These events let others show their argument about what will happen in the future, and of how the future carries on today. Newspaper articles can be arguments, and laws being passed in Congress have a form of argument associated with them. There are many types of arguments that are presented in many ways. In Everything’s an Argument by Andrea A. Lunsford and John J. Ruszkiewicz, information is given about three specific types of argument: forensic, deliberative, and ceremonial. Forensic arguments

Forensic science is defined as the practice of utilizing scientific methodologies to clarify judicial inquiries. The field of forensic science contains a broad range of disciplines and has become a vital aspect of criminal investigations. Some forensic disciplines are laboratory-based; while others are based on an analyst’s interpretation of observable patterns (Kourtsounis, 2009). According to the Innocence project’s website; in greater than fifty percent of wrongful convictions, the use of invalidated or improper forensic techniques played a role in cases; which were later

The CSI effect has a very major influence on today’s crime scene. The CSI effect is no myth. It gives the idea of considerable forensic evidence may be very prevalent to a crime scene. Television crime shows may give a misleading imitation that all evidence is relevant. Most evidence may be thrown out because it does not have any significance.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona from 1993 until January 2017. He has been a notorious and very outspoken sheriff in Arizona, most people ether love him or hate him. His practices have been critiqued from all sides, and he has been accused of wrongdoing multiple times. In 1993 he set up a tent city as an extension of the county jail for prisoners in a yard next to a more permanent jail structure. The tent city can hold more than two thousand inmates at one time, and the population consists of mostly pre-trial inmates. Arpaio supposedly started the outdoor jail to help deal with overcrowding issues.

A lawsuit was filed on March 21, 2016 by Fresno Police Sergeant Cervantes who is suing Fresno Police Department and three other detectives. He states workplace harassment and discrimination due to his Hispanic ethnicity. Further details state, “Sgt. Paul Cervantes accuses Sgt. Tim Tietjen and Detectives Brad Alcorn and Cary Phelps of smearing his reputation with false accusations and spreading rumors that he’s a dirty cop. Tietjen, Alcorn and Phelps are white.”(Lopez, para.2) Such accusations can lead to further tensions, costly legal battles, and government investigations. Sergeant Cervantes seeks unspecified damages, attorney fees for discrimination, retaliation, defamation and malicious prosecution. He also states he has been subjected to such discrimination and harassment since January 2008 to the present. Furthermore, it is not the first time Fresno Police Department has been sued for similar incidences. There is an ongoing problem in the department that needs to be resolve.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

Some may not know there’s a difference between motive and evidence, but there is. They might seem similar but there different. Motive is a persons’ reason for doing something. For example one of Scott Peterson’s motives was money issues. On the other hand, evidence is the facts indicating a person did something.

Looking at the case of the State of California versus Dante Ciraolo. On September 2, 1982, Detective John Schutz of the Santa Clara Police Department received an anonymous phone complaint about someone growing marijuana in their yard. Detective Schutz, a member of the Narcotics Division, went to the location given by the caller to investigate. When he arrived at the intersection of Stebbins Avenue and Clark Avenue, he noticed the residence at 2085 Clark Avenue. From his location on the street (figure 1) Detective Schultz observed a six-foot privacy fence with an inner fence of about ten feet in height, as such, Detective Schultz could not see any evidence of any marijuana cultivation or other criminal activity.

One example is a testimony from a Mr. Alberto Lovato, a 29-year-old Latino man that who was pulled over for allegedly using a turning lane to pass other vehicles, even though police records show that the area the police officer stopped Mr. Lovato was more than 15 miles away from the site of the alleged violation. The police officer apparently drew his pistol, held it on Mr. Lovato, and ordered him to get out of the car and lie face down on the ground, where he was put in handcuffs and dragged toward the back of the police car. He was then held in custody based solely on his race, and questioned about gang activity, and drug and weapons trafficking. He spent several more hours in jail even after interrogation; reportedly stopped on the side of the road because of passing illegally.

The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.

After reaching some dead ends while investigating some warrants, Harrison and I responded to a theft at a liquor store on the North side of town. Again, we investigated by asking questions and reviewing surveillance footage, but we took two statements this time. We took a statement from a worker at the store and another from a witness who saw the men described by the worker. Both of the witnesses believed that the group of aboriginal men that were originally in the store were in league with the other one that stole the bottle of rum. Harrison explained to me that he had no reason to believe that they were working together and the witnesses’ prejudice was the only commonality (This was implied, he did not actually say it). Forms of prejudice or discrimination are a part of dealing with public or investigating. In the school yard nearby, Harrison asked a group about the one man who stole the bottle but did not get any useful information. So, Harrison wrote up a report outlining what he did and that concluded it. During the time he wrote up his report, Harrison explained to me that it probably cost the public more in taxes for him to show up and ask a few questions than doing nothing about it. I knew policing is a public service, but sometimes the cost outweighs the means; relying on the principles of, “justice”.

Discretion in policing and the court system is a necessary and unavoidable facet of criminal justice work, yet it is still very controversial. Discretion exists when courtroom actors (police officers, attorneys, judges) have the flexibility to choose an appropriate response to a situation. Police discretion is defined as “The opportunity of law enforcement officers to exercise choice in their daily activities” (Nowacki, 2015). This means that actors with a great deal of discretion at their disposal may allow biases to affect their decision-making. These decisions lead to important implications throughout the criminal justice process, especially in the courtroom. The process begins with the decision to arrest by a law enforcement officer in the field. Once the case is forwarded to the prosecuting attorney, multifarious avenues of discretionary decisions are available to resolve a case. Potential issues that could arise and that are ever-present in everyday policing include racism, sexism and socialism (Miller, 2015). These issues ultimately have a negative affect on the criminal justice process, leading civilians to not trust the one process and actors that are there to help them. While discretion should play a role in the actions a courtroom actor takes and cannot be eliminated entirely, instead it should be limited and controlled throughout the criminal justice environment so that citizens can once again trust the process and so that there will be no disparities.

The justice system’s failure to prosecute police brutality is a hot topic since most riots and acts of public violence surround this issue. One of the obstacles with prosecuting police brutality is a lack of evidence. As stated by Andrew Walter in an overview of police brutality, the failure to prove police brutality cases “stems from...difficulty in

To determine whether or not the admission of evidence is constitutionally permissible can be a very tough decision. There are many laws and regulations that must be adhered to in order for evidence to be admissible to ensure that a defendant’s right are not violated. One of the most important rules that help protect against illegal evidence being admitted into evidence is the Exclusionary rule. This rule helps to ensure that evidence which is admissible into criminal prosecutions are not only relevant and reliable, but have not violated the fourth or fifth amendment due to misconduct. Specifically, the exclusionary rule forbids evidence obtained by violating a defendant’s constitutional rights to be introduced by the prosecution for the purpose of proving direct guilt Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 218-219).Police misconduct often leads to evidence that can either be obtained legally through the use of illegal evidence, evidence that is illegally obtained through violations of other rules, regulations, a defendants rights, or evidence that is obtained illegally but falls under one of the exclusionary rule exceptions such as the plain view doctrine (Gardner & Anderson, 2013, pg. 219-221).

Homicide is the killing of a person by another human being. Homicides can be criminal, excusable or justifiable. In The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), homicide is defined as and limited to: